fromageGB

Not convinced about this, as responder has only 3 card support, where shortages are not so useful. If he had a limit raise not counting the shortage, then add the shortage and it becomes a game hand and would be bid a different way. If it was just a simple raise not counting the shortage and adding the shortage turned it into an invitation, then slam seems to be a big hope. If there is a shortage, 3415 or 3451 is twice as likely as 3145, so having hearts as natural is even more important.

I don't play this 3 card game invitation, but if I did I would take 3♥ to be natural. (edit) Cue bids are normally over the level of 3M, and depending on your style preceded by a bid or a bypass of serious/non-serious 3NT (which of course is irrelevant in this context). I think finding a 4-4 heart fit is important. Of course, if like me you prefer 1NT if responder has 4 hearts, then there is no reason why 3♥ cannot be an advance cue with a probable lack of club control.

For me it is 1NT and happy with it. The 4-4 heart fit, if it exists, is much preferred to a 5-3 spade fit. "Information leakage" from opener bidding a minor is not so important for me, because 2♣ is a forcing artificial bid. If opener has a very strong hand, bidding is facilitated by letting him bid 2♣, as cue bids are tricky if you start with 3♦. OK, he can cue with spades trumps, but to keep the hearts in the picture is impossible - he bids 3♥ and you bid 4♥ without knowing his strength. Not playing a Gazzilli type 2♣ there is more going your 3 card limit raise, but there are problems, surely? If he bids 3♥ only when accepting game, then presumably he bids 3♠ if not. Now you have missed your better partial. 1NT keeps it in the picture, ie 1♠ 1NT 2♥ 3♥ pass.

In response to 1♥ we play 1♠ <= 4 spades, 1NT >= 5 spades. Both would be 6+hcp, except a subminimum 3 card heart support starts with 1♠, so a say 4 count 5332 shape does not show his spades. Most auctions start 1♥ 1♠. This 1♠ response acts like a forcing NT, makes a 1NT rebid from opener easy and natural, but leaves a partnership problem of finding a 4-4 spade fit. I don't know what is standard here, but as we have already sacrificed a natural 2♣ for the sake of a Gazzilli/Riton sort of strong bid, we choose to sacrifice a natural 2♦ in this sequence to show opener has 4 spades. Don't forget a weakish opener with diamonds can rebid 1NT. However, you could move the 4 spades into the (forcing) 2♣ bid if you preferred. So 1♥ 1NT is 5+ spades, which makes it easy for opener with 3+. Otherwise it acts just like a forcing NT, with the same normal continuations, including a strong 2♣. Nothing special. The only confusion you may get into is if you as opener have 3 spades and a strong hand, and you play kickback. Then you have to apply whatever your agreements are to play in 4♠ rather than this being ace asking in hearts. We had this last night, 1♥ 1NT! 2♣!(strong) 2♥ (weak) and you need your kickback agreements. Just one thing you need to agree is how to handle a GF spade responder. We play 1♥ 2♠ as a sort of Jacoby 2NT, so we start 1NT and rebid 2♠ with 6 spades GF, or just make a forcing bid otherwise with 5. The less than GF 6 card spade suit starts 1♠ then rebids 2♠. This makes it obvious : the initial bid said no "more than 4 cards", so rebidding spades unexpectedly shows the weak 2 type of hand. You could do it the other way round.

I play KI; 1NT comes up as often as any 5 card suit in responder's hand, and yes it does require discussion, but I'm not sure that Flannery requires less (though I have never played it). But does Flannery help your problem much? Doesn't responder still have to bid 1NT with fewer than 5 spades, and put opener in the same position of rebidding 2♣ on a doubleton, eg 3532? Or do you transfer the problem to a fewer-than-4 diamond suit? At least with KI you have the advantage of being able to play the sequence 1♥ 1♠ 1NT as a balanced 12-14. Presumably that sequence in Flannery shows responder with 5 spades, so this is much rarer than the KI's which is fewer than 5 spades. A big bonus for KI, I would have thought.

Maybe you should ask partner how this method will affect her when she has a 6/7 or so count and a 6 card heart suit.

I'm in the 2/1 crowd, but I don't play this 3♣ GF. If I did, 4♠ is weak and 3♠ is strong, both having support. The 4♠ bid would be a sub-minimum 3 card raise (too weak for 1♠ 2♠), or a no-better-place-to-play with a weak hand 2 card support, and 3♠ is 3 card limit raise to allow cue bids. My main partner is female, so gropes are out of the question. 3♦ would be a stronger hand with no support suggesting NT may be a viable place to play.

We are digressing from the OP, but if opener has a minimum 5xx5 etc he cannot show it with a 2♣ bid, even if you play jump shift as strong. 2♣ has to be either real clubs or a balanced hand, surely, if 1NT is forcing and you play a natural 2♦ rebid. Forcing NT means you cannot show a weak real club suit.

Maybe this is not a fair statement unless you include a suggestion as to what would be better? In a normal sequence opener could have bid 2♥, then 3♥ from responder would have set the suit to allow cue bidding, but that 2NT thrown in has spoiled things. Now it is not straight forward to agree hearts by other means. For example, 3♠ (after the 3♥) could be assumed to be an advance cue if responder then bid 4♥ over opener's 3NT, but here it will bring opener's 4♠ agreement and then you are up the creek. No, without specific unusual agreements, I think ace asking is reasonable.

Not all 4, if that's what you mean. It does work if W is balanced with 3 spades and the ♥KJT doesn't it? ♠AQ, ♥A, ♠K throw diamond, ruff ♦, ♣A and a ruff, ♦ruff, ♣K throw spade. So W needs 3 spades and 2 clubs.

It happened to me years ago. I ignored it, have a very good friend, and if I haven't been selected for higher things then I have compensation. Friendship means more - but I guess it depends on how close you are and what you do together other than bridge.

Comparing degrees of artificiality, I think 3♣ that shows a strong hand but can be a doubleton (Zel) is no simpler than 2♣ that shows an undefined strong hand. So my preference is for 2♣ as it gives double the room to explore fits and game suitability. That being the case, jumps should show specific shapes/strengths that can then be removed from the alternatives covered by the general purpose 2♣, so its subsequent descriptions are more precise.

Perhaps I should add that if you are going to have a partially unknown major/minor 2-suiter option, I think it better to show the minor and leave the major to be discovered. At least that way, if say 2♣ = ♣ + (♥ or ♠) you can discover the major at the 2 level, and it it does not fit well, you KNOW whether it is safe to go to the 3 level minor. Completely different to showing the major and leaving the minor undefined.

I don't like the X = 4 card major + 5+card minor. I used to play it as part of the original vertigo defence, but found it didn't work out often enough. Many times it was OK, but other times when there was no decent fit you end up too high. For example, advancer has a 4 card major and when overcaller shows the wrong major you are scratching around hoping to find a minor fit at the 3 level - and there isn't one. I now think bids should be more defined. If you initially show at least one definite suit you have the option of playing there. Of course your 2C is OK in this regard, because if you have the 2-suiter, you will be bidding 2 of your 5 card major. However, I see little point in also having a 5 card minor, because what is partner going to do with a 4225 or 5125 when you bid hearts? You may have a wonderful 5-5 club fit, but he is never going to risk bidding it. It seems you are catering just for the rare occasion he has both long minors. You suffer the same problem as with the X.

Not keen on that 3♣ bid unless it describes a specific hand such as a 15/16 5xx5. Assuming it is a strong hand with a club suit, I would say 4♣ is good. Stronger than 5♣. If 4♦ was not ace asking, but a cue bid, then 4♠ is now good. It cannot be passed, as we have agreed clubs. Having made that move, I will pass 5♣ but otherwise cooperate.

Nice, well thought out. Thanks, Ken.

Not with Ken's 2-suited 2-bids, you do this only if they are single suited. I like Ken's suggestion, and assume the 2♦=♠+♦ variation is 5x4x minimum lengths. Sounds good.

We set trumps first. If partner's first reply was at the 5 level I would assume natural, but it never happens. The trouble with exclusion when you bid the suit, at least with my replies, is that the level can be too high. You may not want to commit to a slam without hearing replies. What we do is show a shortage after J2N (a splinter is weaker for us) and then bid one step higher than kickback to act as exclusion in the shortage suit. eg 1♥ 2♠(J2N, "have you a shortage") 2NT(no) 3♦(my shortage) 3♥(waiting, indeterminate) 4NT=exclusion ace ask, whereas 4♠ is ordinary ace ask implying a singleton rather than a void.

Yep. A rose by any other name ...

I think pensioners should get discounted entries, too.

I speak only for myself but over a bid, no. That is 1♥ (1♠) then 1NT = transfer to ♣ while X = transfer to NT. But after a double, yes. 1♥/♠ (X) and system on, basically, including Bergen. 2new will be natural GF (except 2♣ has a couple of other options), and 1NT is forcing that can be less than GF in any variety without support, or even a balanced GF. I think it may not be optimal, but it is easy to remember :) Some people like to overcall or double on a shoestring, so it does no harm to have a normal GF bidding sequence.

Yes, I agree that remembering how strong your NT is is more important that remembering transfers. Get your priorities right ! :)

Commonly on a K lead neither defender knows how many cards the other has in the suit, and play length-showing. From QT72 the T then 2 to show 2 or 4 is often used - 2nd highest then lowest. Leader should consider if partner played high low "is it consistent with 4 cards on that basis?" Many times it is not, so he can safely give a ruff. But if it is consistent, and 4 cards would give declarer a ruff and discard, and the bidding gives no hint as to declarer's length, then it is usually best to switch.

Yes, many options, when you consider further bidding beyond the transfer to 2♠. However, if you load all those meanings into the 2♥ transfer, it doesn't help opener when advancer bids (say) 3♦. Opener needs to know immediately how many spades you have, and how strong you are. You could be 3 card just constructive, so he passes. Doubler ups the ante to 4♦ and now when you are 4 card invitational you cannot safely unilaterally bid game. Any of pass, X and 4♠ could be correct. And you can't use X to show the hand now, as that would be the penalty call when responder was 3 card invitational. At least playing Bergen your initial 3♦/♥ or whatever you do to show that 4 card hand makes it much easier for opener. As well as making it more difficult for advancer to show a suit. I accept that 3 card support 11-12 loses out if you bid 1♠ X 1(forcing)NT. However, your method now would be to incorporate the 3 card invitation into the 2♣ response, as I do anyway when I do not have 4 hearts. No, I do think that showing length and strength of support on responder's first call is important.

There's certainly something to be said for this. But Bergen gives us 3 strength ranges each for both 3 and 4 card support, while if I adapt my overcall handling methods to the double, by adding 1NT = transfer to clubs, and somehow incorporate a XX into it to compensate for the lack of an available cue bid, I have only 2 strength ranges for each length. So I would gain when I have a fit jump hand but lose out when I have no other decent suit. Swings and roundabouts, perhaps. If the method adopted after a X does not show the number of spades in support, I think it is a big loss.